Judicial Lawmaking, Discourse Theory, and the ICTY on Belligerent Reprisals

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1261-1278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Kuhli ◽  
Klaus Günther
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Discourse Theory ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Normative Expectations ◽  
Judicial Lawmaking ◽  
The Individual

Without presenting a full definition, it can be said that the notion of judicial lawmaking implies the idea that courts create normative expectations beyond the individual case. That is, our question is whether courts' normative declarations have an effect which is abstract and general. Our purpose here is to ask about judicial lawmaking in this sense with respect to international criminal courts and tribunals. In particular, we will focus on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). No other international criminal court or tribunal has issued so many judgments as the ICTY, so it seems a particularly useful focus for examining the creation of normative expectations.

scholarly journals Thousands on the stand: Exploring trends and patterns of international witnesses

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 819-836
Author(s):  
Gabriele Chlevickaite ◽  
Barbora Hola ◽  
Catrien Bijleveld
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Complex Interaction ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Witness Testimony ◽  
General Overview ◽  
Judicial Efficiency ◽  
Situational Contexts

AbstractThe international criminal courts and tribunals have heard thousands of witnesses in cases of extreme complexity and breadth. Their evidentiary record is overwhelming, with live witness testimony standing out as one of its defining features. Keeping in mind the arguments and policies of judicial efficiency and fairness, this article empirically examines the trends and patterns in viva voce witness numbers at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). We observe clear differences between institutions and individual cases, and discuss the underlying reasons for such divergences. As well as providing a general overview, we demonstrate the complex interaction between case-related characteristics, institutional and situational contexts, and the number of witnesses called at trial.

The Legitimacy of International Criminal Tribunals and the Current Prospects of International Criminal Justice

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIO CASSESE
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

AbstractHaving identified the differences between the concept of legality and the much more complex concept of legitimacy, the author scrutinizes the legality and the legitimacy of the existing international criminal tribunals. Their legality has been put in doubt only concerning the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), but the criticisms have been or could be overcome. Assessing the legitimacy of these tribunals is instead a more difficult task. In fact, misgivings have been voiced essentially concerning the legitimacy of the ICTY and the STL, but not the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the other international criminal courts. The legitimacy of the STL in particular deserves to be discussed: even assuming that the STL initially lacked some forms of legitimacy, it could achieve it – or confirm it – through its ‘performance legitimacy’. The author then suggests what the realistic prospects for international criminal justice are. Convinced as he is that it is destined to flourish even more, he tries to identify the paths it is likely to take in future years.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS ROUND-UP

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 255-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amna Guellali ◽  
Enrique Carnero Rojo
Keyword(s):  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Courts

AbstractThe International Criminal Courts Round-Up reports on the most interesting judgements and decisions rendered by international(ized) criminal courts and tribunals during the reporting period. In addition, important developments within the various organs of the courts are highlighted, such as the appointment of new judges and significant amendments to the procedural rules of the courts. The Round-Up presently covers issues concerning the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

Victims as a Third Party

2020 ◽  
pp. 309-322
Author(s):  
Liesbeth Zegveld
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Humanitarian Assistance ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Individual ◽  
International Criminal Trials

This chapter explores and challenges the promise of victim participation before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Victims are a key reason for international criminal trials. Indeed, trials are said to be held because of the great numbers of victims the crimes have created. Perpetrators are prosecuted so victims can see justice being done. Yet when it comes to victims who want to claim their own rights before international criminal courts, the picture is less clear. International courts have struggled with how to deal with victims. Responses to victims’ participation in criminal trials have ranged from outright opposition, to reluctant acceptance, to apparent embrace. Even when there seems to be embrace, though, under the surface victims struggle to have their suffering and damage recognized. Victims are merely third-parties in the criminal trial. The charges are not their charges; they may not fit their damage. What is more, courts deal with victims collectively, denying them the individual attention their claims may demand. To make things worse, rather than applying the legal principle of accountability to victims' claims for damage, courts have a tendency to address victims' damage as a humanitarian problem that can be solved through humanitarian assistance.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS ROUND-UP

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 233-262
Author(s):  
David Turns ◽  
Carnero Rojo ◽  
Julieta Solano McCausland ◽  
Aleks Bojovic
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Courts

AbstractThe International Criminal Courts Round-Up reports on the most interesting judgements and decisions rendered by international(ized) criminal courts and tribunals during the reporting period. In addition, important developments within the various organs of the courts are highlighted, such as the appointment of new judges and significant amendments to the procedural rules of the courts. The Round-Up presently covers issues concerning the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS ROUND-UP

2007 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 133-197
Author(s):  
Amna Guellai ◽  
Enrique Carnero Rojo
Keyword(s):  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Courts

AbstractThe International Criminal Courts Round-Up reports on the most interesting judgements and decisions rendered by international(ized) criminal courts and tribunals during the reporting period. In addition, important developments within the various organs of the courts are highlighted, such as the appointment of new judges and significant amendments to the procedural rules of the courts. The Round-Up presently covers issues concerning the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS ROUND-UP

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 311-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Carnero Rojo ◽  
Maria Nybondas
Keyword(s):  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Courts

AbstractThe International Criminal Courts Round-Up reports on the most interesting judgements and decisions rendered by international(ized) criminal courts and tribunals during the reporting period. In addition, important developments within the various organs of the courts are highlighted, such as the appointment of new judges and significant amendments to the procedural rules of the courts. The Round-Up presently covers issues concerning the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

scholarly journals Judicial Witness Assessments at the ICTY, ICTR and ICC

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-210
Author(s):  
Gabrielė Chlevickaitė ◽  
Barbora Holá ◽  
Catrien Bijleveld
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Fact Finding

Abstract Accurate assessment of witness testimonies underpins judicial fact-finding at international criminal courts and tribunals (ICCTs). However, the lack of formal assessment criteria and uncoordinated methods, coupled with advances in the scientific understanding of the psychology of witnessing, calls for a re-examination of the judicial practice. This study critically evaluates the state of the art of witness assessments at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), based on all the trial judgments issued in 1996–2019. The analysis results in a consolidation of this ad hoc, constantly evolving jurisprudence, into a framework that has been in development since the 1990s. The authors reflect upon the scientific validity of the criteria used throughout the analysis, based on up-to-date findings from psychology and criminology, and identify the areas that would most benefit from standardized procedures.

Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Human Rights Law: The Contribution of the International Criminal Court

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The road to developing an international institutional capacity to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide has been a long one, and has in many ways concluded with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). By looking at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as the ICC, this paper traces the evolution of the concept of individual criminal responsibility to its present incarnation. It argues that while the ICC presents its own unique ‘added value’ to the prosecution of international criminals, its application of justice continues to be biased by the influence of powerful states.

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document